Users, Uses and Usability

Users, Uses and Usability (IP #1)

My Understanding of Usability

My understanding of usability based on the Issa and Isaias (2015) article is that technology should be designed for people first, through understanding their requirements and level of technological literacy. Usability is about a user's experience with a given technology. If the experience is less than optimal for the user, it is the technology that is put into question to change, rather than the user. The quality of interaction between the system and the user is largely dependent on the design of the interface, which is developed based on user needs.  

Educational Usability

If we take Issa and Isaias’ conception of usability a bit further and adjust it for educational usability, what needs to be added is accessibility and inclusivity,as well as designing for users that are learners. In education, there are many kinds of learners with varying needs and the design and purpose of technology should consistently refer to those needs throughout the development process. Educational usability should take into account all learners, designing for those who are in the margins rather than the average student, as accessible technology benefits everyone. Learners need to feel that technology is designed for them through incorporating cultural diversity and opportunities for expression; therefore, inclusive design is critical. Technology should not only to be useable, but function for the processes of learning.

Examples of Configuring the User

In Woolgar’s (1990) entertaining recount of usability testing gone wrong, there are two examples that I’ll revisit:

From the “The manuals”, using the usability trials to assess whether the machine is behaving as it should and if the users are behaving like a “real user”is a very precarious way of conducting usability testing. It is also a missed opportunity to test the technology in depth. Users should be selected for testing based on the personas developed at the outset of the project, which represent those who would be using the technology in real life. Without first understanding who will be using the technology, or reading the manual, makes for chaotic and confusing usability testing.

In “Constructing natural users”, the testers provided commentary and empathized when an error occurred for a user, which intervened with the emotions and response of the user. What behaviour were they expecting a “real user” to have if they did not sufficiently identify who the user(s) is? I think they were wanting the users not to encounter problems, and that encountering a problem would be an indication that the machine is not as useable as they thought. This usability trial should have been prepared for a number of different users with various levels of computer literacy. In trying to control and mitigate there actions of the users, they actually tampered with the results of the testing.Setting guidelines for usability testing in conjunction with clear goals is crucial to making testing productive and assistive in developing technology.

Issa & Isaias vs. Woolgar

"…the usability evaluation stage is an effective method by which a software development team can establish the positive and negative aspects of its prototype releases, and make the required changes before the system is delivered to the target users" (Issa & Isaias, 2015, p. 29).

“…the design and production of a new entity…amounts to a process of configuring itsuser, where 'configuring' includes defining the identity of putative users, andsetting constraints upon their likely future actions” (Woolgar, 1990).

The quotes above both discuss establishing usability through testing or evaluation, but have opposing views about what is being tested. Issa and Isaias (2015) focus on testing the technology, placing confidence in their selection of users. Their perspective is that usability is part of an iterative process of testing with users, then making the changes to the technology based on the users’ experiences. They also indicate that establishing usability specifications to fulfill, based on user needs, is helpful in having a “quantifiable end” to an iterative process (Issa & Isaias, p. 34). Quite differently, Woolgar’s (1990) ideas on “configuring the user” is to place the user into a box, of sorts, controlling what they are able to do in a system. Configuring the user is a process that favours the system/technology rather than the experiences of the user. Usability is, then,only considered from the system/technology perspective, rather than to benefit the user.

In keeping with Issa and Isaias’ perspectives, accepting and trusting the user can reveal critical information to improve technology during usability testing. Technology can be adjusted and optimized, but users and learners should not need to change to suit the technology.

‍

References 

Issa, T., & Isaias, P. (2015). Usability and human computer interaction (HCI). In Sustainable Design (pp.19-35). Springer.

Woolgar, S. (1990). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. The Sociological Review, 38 (1_Suppl.), 58-99.